ArticleIrish journal of medical science2018
A prospective pilot study of Dilapan-S compared with Propess for induction of labour at 41+ weeks in nulliparous pregnancy.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparison of Synthetic Osmotic Dilators and Pharmacologic Agents for Cervical Ripening in Induction of Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of midwifery & women's healthPooled it
- The Effect of Preinduction Cervical Ripening With Synthetic Hygroscopic Dilators on Maternal Outcomes of Women With Previous Caesarean Pregnancy: A Single-Group Clinical Trial.Journal of pregnancy · 2024Trial
- Article
- Synthetic Osmotic Dilators for Pre-Induction Cervical Ripening - an Evidence-Based Review.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2023Article
- A Review of the Mechanism of Action and Clinical Applications of Osmotic Dilators for Cervical Ripening in the Induction of Labor and in Gynecology Procedures.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of labour induction has risen worldwide over the past decade, and this may contribute to the rising caesarean delivery rate. The mechanisms for induction of labour are generally divided into two categories: mechanical and pharmacological.
aimsThe objective of this study was to determine if mechanical induction with Dilapan-S is an acceptable, safe method of induction of labour in post-dates uncomplicated nulliparous pregnancy.
methodsThis was a single-centre prospective observational pilot study trial. Fifty-two low-risk nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix, scheduled for induction of labour for post-dates ≥ 41 weeks gestation, were offered induction of labour with Dilapan-S or Propess from May 2016 until November 2016. The primary outcomes measured were compliance to study protocol and maternal (infection, hyperstimulation) and neonatal outcomes (Apgar score at birth). The secondary outcome measures included change in Bishop's score and caesarean delivery rate.
resultsCompliance to study protocol was 25/26 (96%); it was possible to insert Dilapan-S in all but one woman. There were no differences in maternal and neonatal primary outcomes between the groups. There were no cases in either arm of hyperstimulation with either induction method. No difference between the groups was noted in the caesarean delivery rate nor in the mean change in Bishop's score.
conclusionsDilapan-S is an acceptable, safe form of induction of labour in post-dates uncomplicated nulliparous pregnancy. No cases of hyperstimulation were found, and therefore, Dilapan-S may be a suitable option for outpatient induction of labour in low-risk post-dates nulliparas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.